Fellowship Paper

Collaborative Seminar Discussions

By Rebecca Wilusz

Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School

Massachusetts Charter School Association
Fellowship Program

2002

I like seminar discussions because they require that my students to talk to each other rather than through me. After my initial, bumbling experience with this practice, I realized that there was much more I could do to prepare my students to participate effectively in seminars. Since then, I have worked to develop a range of activities to ready my students for the activity. In this paper, I provide an overview of seminar discussions, as practiced in my classes. I also describe the activities I use to prepare my students for the experience of seminar discussions.

I did not invent the idea of seminar discussions, but since my initial introduction to them, I have encountered several different versions of the practice. By whatever name--Socratic Seminars, Paideia Seminars, or Text-Based Seminars (each somewhat different from the next)--these discussions place primary importance on deep understanding of a text through close reading, questioning, and conversation with others. They also place principal responsibility for the work of the discussion on the students, removing the teacher to the background, making him or her at most a guide--one who asks focusing, authentic questions, questions to which there is no right or ready answer. During seminar discussions students talk to each other and listen to each other, without filtering everything through the teacher.

I choose to use seminars in my class because I want students to learn to talk about a text to deepen understanding; I also want them to see the larger questions a text raises and to really listen to each other in the process of getting at these. The comments of students illustrate the value of seminars. During end of the semester evaluations for my Division 3, seminar-based class, The American Dream (January 2002, for the fall 2001 term) when asked what was most enjoyable or rewarding about seminars, students responded, "Being able to hear others’ ideas," "[T]hey were a good way to get deeper into a book," and "I learned I am not as shy as I thought I was."

There are so many potential benefits to seminars that unless a teacher works with one group over the course of several years, or an entire school is implementing a seminar-based curriculum as do Paideia schools, I would recommend choosing one or two results on which to focus. My goal has been to help students improve reading and listening skills, two of the twelve skill areas in which students are assessed at Parker (see also "Assessment"), so I have focused my practice on these areas.

The first step in seminar preparation is selecting a text. It should cause students to think and question; it should be accessible to students but also challenge them, and it should address some complex, larger issues or questions. I have learned that the term "text" can and should be interpreted loosely. It can mean a set of data, a math problem, a theorem, a book, a poem, a short excerpt, a movie, a piece of art, etc.

In my class, the text is often the central work of literature in a unit, and the seminar is the culmination of weeks or months of guided exploration and discussion of the work. I’ve used Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, the movie Pleasantville, and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. Shorter pieces, including important passages of larger texts can also be the subject of discussions. I have worked with paragraphs from Thoreau’s Walden, a set of statistics on the correlation between average income and happiness over the course of three decades, and a page from Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I have also experimented with having my students consider a new text in relation to one they knew well. For example, I have used an excerpt from W.E.B. DuBois’ The Souls of Black Folks in relation with Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun.

In the discussions centered on a whole text, I find that students talk more about the big ideas of a text and really need to be reminded to refer to specifics. In the discussions centered on shorter texts, students have the time to "pull apart" the language and meaning of the text first and then talk about the passage as a whole, but after they need to put that passage in the larger context of the whole from which it came.

After choosing a text, the teacher develops a question on which to focus the seminar. Because I work at a school that is part of the Coalition of Essential Schools, my students are familiar with the idea of Essential Questions. These are rich, complex questions that don’t have easy answers. They are open-ended and allow for differences of opinion and interpretation while also getting at the complex issues raised by a text. They get at why, how and so what rather than who, what, and when. Some of the questions my class has used are: What’s eating Willy Loman and why? Is Gatsby Great? Why or why not?

Arriving at the essential question was easier when I, as the teacher, developed it and told the students what it would be. Over time, however, I came to want students to think about the larger issues of a text before the actual discussion took place. I also wanted to increase student investment in the topic and thus the discussion of that topic. I began to have my students participate in the development and selection of the essential question.

Often, I assign students the task of developing three potential seminar questions for homework. In class the next day, they each write their questions on the board, and everyone checks two questions they like, allowing us to narrow the field. Sometimes, we do another quick round of voting to again narrow the list. Other times, we go right into looking for themes among the remaining questions, talking about what questions would allow us to get at deeper issues in the text. We either select one of the questions or develop a new one that combines some of the ideas in multiple questions. Finally, each person, including me, votes for one question. In one course evaluation (January 2002), a student noted, "Choosing the question in class was helpful so we were all interested and comfortable with the topic."

Before discussion begins, it is important for students to prepare for the seminar, in terms of both content and skills. (For more specifics on skills practice, see the "Scaffolding" section.) I term the content preparation, "Pre-Seminar work"; it takes the form of homework done the night before the seminar. I check to make sure the work is complete before discussion begins, and collect the work after the seminar. This is an easy way to hold students accountable for work and help them participate in the discussion itself; students can use their pre-seminar work as an aid during the discussion, as they would if they were taking an open note test or writing an essay from notes. Student evaluations (January 2002) of pre-seminar work include the following comments: "Most of the time it was [helpful]," "[It] helped get prompts going that structured the discussions," "Definitely. It helped me to prepare," and "It gave you some thoughts to go into the seminar with."

To determine pre-seminar assignments I always start with the essential question and try to figure out what information can help students in their discussion of that topic. Often I ask students to find relevant quotes and explain how they relate to the topic. I then ask students to argue (in writing, as homework) at least two sides of the issue (Gatsby is great and why, and Gatsby isn’t great and why, for example), describing relationships between characters, finding quotes to support those interpretations, defining key words, etc.

To prepare for the discussion itself, I often ask students to set a goal for their participation in the seminar discussion and record it when they’ve completed their pre-seminar work. This not only focuses students on their behavior during the conversation; it also gives them a starting point for reflection on the process. Student goals range from "Make myself speak up" to "Make myself be quiet," to a variety of others about responding to classmates’ ideas, asking questions, using the text, and making connections between ideas.

The next step in the process is the discussion itself. These can happen in class periods as short as 45 minutes and as long as two hours. (See "Other Considerations" for more on this topic.) The different roles of the teacher range from virtually a non-participant (according to the description of this practice from Grant Wiggins) to almost sole questioner (as defined by Socrates, and then Mortimer Adler) to somewhere in between (as described by the National Paideia Center, www.paideia.org).

As the facilitator, it is most important that I: ensure an atmosphere that is safe and respectful for all participants; withhold my opinions and ideas on the issues being discussed; ask questions to keep focus on the topic; and ask questions that help students to explore deep meanings of the text. When I began using seminars, I erred on the side of being only an observer. I didn’t even ask questions as students discussed and I never made comments. Now, I have moved more toward the middle ground of facilitation. I still try to speak infrequently, but I often ask three to five questions in an hour-long seminar. I might even make one statement about process, if a reminder seems necessary. For example, if I notice that the quieter students are trying to get into the conversation, and there is no space that allows them to do that, I might verbally note my observation for the group and offer a reminder that a moment of quiet is O.K.; it sometimes gives quieter individuals an opening to speak. Often, my goal at the outset of a seminar is to talk less than I did in the previous seminar, and I tell this to my students.

I have tried different methods of starting the seminar, from simply throwing out the essential question to the group, to asking a question that might lead toward the essential question. For example, I’ve asked, "What makes someone great?" at the outset of the seminar that focuses on the question, Is Gatsby Great? Sometimes I ask one question and go around the circle to have everyone answer. Over time, the benefits of the second method have become clear to me. It allows all students to speak without forcing themselves into the conversation, and it provides a range of ideas and opinions to which others can react, usually leading us right into the discussion.

I have used a variety of questions to open the round. Sometimes I ask students to identify a sentence or phrase that seems most important to them and why, or a sentence or phrase that seems confusing along with the questions it raises. Sometimes I ask a question about a book or character, or share a definition of a key word (such as: great, insane, or hero). I might also ask students to briefly summarize their reasoning behind it (for example: Willy’s past is eating him because he feels like he has failed, and is trying to figure out where he went wrong.).

Throughout the seminar, I map the conversation. This is a technique I learned from Elizabeth City at her workshop, "Conversation is Essential: The Paideia Seminar in a Working, Thinking Classroom (2000). I keep track of the evidence I need to assess student learning: who participates and how often; who asks questions and who responds directly to other participants; who uses specifics and quotes as evidence. I also try to keep a record of the major ideas and topics addressed. I do all of this on a few sheets of paper on which I list student’s names in a manner that visually represents where students sit in class (see Appendix A), and I use symbols to do the mapping. Specifically, I:

• circle the name of a participant when he or she speaks,
• use hash marks to tally number of times each person speaks,
• use question marks for each question asked,
• write page number or "text" when a participant refers to the text specifically,
• draw arrows between two participants when they respond to each other.

I share these maps with my students after the seminar, so they can see their participation and use that information to set both individual and group goals for the next seminar.

One of the biggest challenges for me as a teacher is managing my participation in seminars. I find it helpful to have one essential or guiding question to frame the seminar, a question I also come back to at the end of the discussion. This helps me see where the discussion pushed student thinking and what impact the conversation had on ideas. As follow-up, I like to focus on specific words or phrases in a paragraph or paragraphs in a book. My follow-up questions often ask participants to clarify terms and ideas, or offer support (from the text) for their interpretations. I’ve found that while it is important to have some follow-up questions prepared before discussion, it is often throughout the course of the conversation that the most genuine follow-up questions arise. It does require patience to reserve these questions and first give students a chance to ask them or otherwise get at the issues on their own.

To facilitate students’ reflection on the ideas discussed in the seminar, I require my students to write post-seminar reflections on the question we considered as a class. This gives them a chance to consolidate the ideas of the seminar and to, with more time to consider the issues, respond more deeply to ideas discussed. My students find these written pieces helpful because, as one student stated in course evaluation (January 2002), "Sometimes you need to think about things for a while to come up with ideas." Another responded that the written work "pulled together my observations, thoughts and reflections."

The reflection on group process happens in class, the day after the seminar discussion. I ask students two questions: What worked well and why? and What could we improve and how? Often I asked them other questions such as: Did most people participate equally? Did people offer evidence to support their positions? Did you ever feel that your point was misunderstood? Did anyone ask you questions to try to clarify what you were saying? After asking what they noticed, I add anything else I observed about group dynamics or process. Asked whether the period of reflection is helpful, one student noted in an evaluation (January 2002), "It helped us realize what had gone wrong with the last seminar and to make sure it didn’t happen next time."

During the reflection period, we set group goals for the next seminar discussion and develop strategies to achieve them. One of my classes struggled to find a way to allow space in the conversation, so the less forceful group members could participate without having to interrupt someone. When I asked students how they could invite quieter people into the conversation, the first suggestion was to call on them by name. I acknowledged that that would definitely work but asked if they felt more reserved individuals would be comfortable with that. They acknowledged that they probably wouldn’t, so we talked about how to open up the conversation more generally--by asking questions, by asking for someone who hadn’t participated much to respond, by watching for facial and posture cues and then giving someone the floor, and by leaving a moment of quiet in the discussion. Before each seminar I always review the successes of past seminars and reiterate the goals established and the strategies we discussed to help us accomplish those goals the next time.

Seminar discussions are challenging for most students, though in different ways. When, in course evaluations, I’ve asked my students to comment on the most difficult aspect of the practice, their responses (January 2002) have included the following: "Not using up all the air time," "Encouraging other people to talk; [asking] probing questions to further their thinking," "Arguments over details instead of discussion," and "…not to interrupt another person who was speaking." I think they are accurate observations. I categorize the major challenges as managing air time, really listening to others, responding to ideas rather than people, asking genuine questions, and using specific evidence effectively. This might sound like everything, but in each area that poses real difficulty for some, there are students with real strengths. The trick is allowing students to see the skills their classmates have, strategize about how to acquire them, and allow everyone to practice them.

I have my students practice marking the text; they underline, write questions, add definitions of words they don’t know, write page numbers of important passages that relate, and record connections to other ideas/characters/texts. We practice as a class, using an overhead and marking up several passages from each book, play, or other written piece. This work is part of the discussion leading up to the seminar.

I help my students practice challenging and criticizing ideas rather than people by making highly opinionated statements to my students such as, "School uniforms should be mandatory in all schools." I ask for a volunteer to give me the uncensored version of their response. Often, it is as simple as, "That’s stupid!" or "What? How can you say that?" After the "real" response is out there, as a group, we rephrase these assertions. Often the group turns statements into questions. "That’s stupid" becomes, "What makes uniforms seem like a good idea?"

Of course, tone of voice needs to be addressed as well as phrasing. I emphasize the importance of this through an activity in which several students are given the same phrase, sentence, or question to state out loud. I give students directions as to the tone, mood, attitude in which to say the sentence, such as "sarcastically," "as if annoyed," "excitedly," etc. The performances are amusing and hammer home the importance of not just the words we use but also the way we say things.

To help students develop questions, I give a mini-lesson on the difference between factual and interpretive questions. It never hurts to review this distinction as well as to talk about when each type of question is useful and to give some examples. After that, one exercise I find works well involves giving student groups statements of opinion and asking them to raise questions they need answered in order to be able to understand the opinions. For example, I give groups or individuals the task of developing statements about the moral of a story or a chapter, or I ask them to make a statement about a character. The groups would then exchange these statements without discussion, and develop questions. I also do this exercise with statements I develop, such as "The only think Huck has learned is that he can’t beat the system," or "The moral of this story is: Don’t dream too big." The more provocative the statement the better. It immediately leads students to ask questions about vocabulary and to get at meaning.

The exercise can also be done with newspaper headlines, statistics, or scientific hypotheses. Anything that raises questions (when taken out of context) will work. The activity can either be done in small groups or individually, either orally or in writing. Students can also develop their own statements, but if they do I recommend they work on the statements in class, so the teacher has the chance to move around the room and check the statements students create, questioning students individually as necessary to assist them in developing statements that are interpretive, and not simply factual. Then, students could pass the papers on which their statements are written, between two and five times for three minutes or so each time (an adaptation of a common practice at Parker), to get questions from several classmates.

In class and when doing homework assignments, I have my students find and use evidence from the text. I give students one passage; I spend time pulling it apart in class, and then I ask them to find a specified number of passages that support the passage or refute it. I ask them to find passages that do the same thing (describe, foreshadow, use imagery, etc.) as the passage examined in class, or that do the same thing but in a different way. Asking students to select an important passage as they read and then asking them to explain why it is important, what it added to their understanding of a character or a situation, also hones their close reading skills.

Listening is one of the most challenging skills to teach. It requires that students prepare for discussion but don’t become so wedded to their ideas that they don’t listen to what others say. It also means that students have to stop thinking that there is a right answer. The benefit here is that without one right answer, they don’t have to worry about finding it and saying it first.

The work described in "Developing Questions" can be adapted for use in this skill area. Students or the teacher can make provocative statements of opinion, offering not just the opinion but also some reasoning. For example: The lesson of Gatsby is that we shouldn’t dream too big. It’s not a problem to have dreams but having ones that require impossible things to happen, like erasing the past, is not achievable and only leads to failure. Next, I have students respond to this statement by first paraphrasing it. I ask, "What did I just say?" Then I have students ask me questions about the statement. Finally, I ask them to state if they agree or disagree and explain why. The activity can also be extended to require that students then find passages to support their positions.

Another exercise to develop listening skills, one that can work well in the course of regular class conversation, is asking students to paraphrase what others have just said or to summarize the ideas that have been discussed up to a certain point. I’ve begun to devote five minutes at the end of every class to asking my students to summarize what we discussed and how it fits into the bigger picture. Because I tell them I’m going to do this, they are always ready, and a wide range of students contributes to the summary each day. Not only does it encourage some to take notes, it also encourages students to consolidate knowledge, through a brief pause and reflection.

Managing air time is also a challenge for students. Many are used to teachers managing their air time for them. The talkers are used to being praised for talking, and the non-talkers are used to being told to "speak up." When I introduce the task of seminar discussions at the beginning of the semester, I draw two points on the board and label one as talking and the other as silence. I then explain that the goal is to be somewhere in the middle. I help students realize their own use of air time by sharing with them my map of seminars, complete with tally marks for each time someone has spoken. I also have each student keep track of his or her own speaking, by making tally marks during class conversation; then I have students figure out the average number of minutes of air time each person would have if the time allotted the class were divided evenly. I use an exercise involving "talking chips," something I’ve adapted from the work of a variety of teachers. The "talking chips" can be anything from candy, to pennies, to pieces of paper. When doing the exercise, everyone gets the same number of chips, and every time they speak, they must place a chip in a pile on the table in the center of the room. Students can speak no more times than the number of chips they have. I do, however, allow students to speak fewer times, mostly because I don’t want to encourage students to talk when they have nothing to add. If a student gets four chips, for example, I allow them to have one left.

When debriefing from the exercise, I sometimes ask for a student who feels they talked a lot to say why they participated at that level and for someone who feels they didn’t talk a lot to say why they participated at that level. This question brings the issue of air time to the class and exposes the perceptions of students on both sides of the spectrum.

Ideally, seminars work best in longer class blocks of 70 to 90 minutes. That said, the work of a seminar can be broken up into different segments, so over the course of two 45 minute periods, the work can be accomplished. The major compromise made when working in shorter periods is with respect to the flow of ideas. Students might need some time at the end of the first day to collect their thoughts and write down the points from which they will start the next day. At the end of class, the teacher might need to ask students to write down a question they have, as a place to start the next class.

One convenient way to break up the work on a piece of literature is to spend day one concentrating on the specifics and day two on the more general implications and analysis. For example, the class could look at the words and phrases of a specific quote on day one, and on day two they could bring that initial quote together with the larger work from which it was taken, or the central theme of the unit or other topics already studied.

Other options include: On day one students could state initial impressions and raise questions, while on day two students could concentrate on trying to answer those questions, providing evidence and explaining arguments. On day one students could have several short conversations in small groups of two to four, and on day two they could bring out the common themes and questions raised the previous day. There are obviously many ways to divide the work. Some of what makes sense depends on the class, their comfort level (with the task and each other), as well as the level of challenge presented by the text. The more challenging and dense the text, the more I recommend spending time on a small section one day and then moving out to the larger ideas, themes, and connections on subsequent days.

Another way to address the issue of limited time is to use shorter sections of texts. Either the teacher can select them, or every participant can suggest one important passage to examine during the heart of the discussion, a passage that gets at more than one key issue that the class has already discussed. The class can then vote to pick the passage on which to focus.

With some flexibility and a change of configuration, even a large class can engage in seminar discussions. As mentioned earlier, teachers can divide the number of minutes available in class by the number of students and calculate the average air time available to each student, if class time were to be shared equally. If time seems too short to gain the evidence sought, I recommend dividing the class into two groups and having the seminar take place in rounds. These rounds can happen on different days, if necessary, because of time constraints.

In her article, Teaching Reading: Beyond the Plot, Margaret Metzger, an English teacher at Brookline High School in Brookline, MA (Metzger 1998) describes the way she divides her class into two groups. One group forms an inner circle, and the other group forms a larger circle around them. The inner circle discusses, and the outer circle observes. One of the benefits of this method is that the instructor can ask the outer circle to direct their observations. It is possible to have the outer circle track the questions asked (for example, the ratio of male to female participation, the number of times people use specific parts of the text, etc.). In this way, the outer circle’s work can be of direct use. They identify areas in which the class discussion can improve, and their input can then help the teacher and the class as a whole address these areas and set goals for improvement in subsequent discussions. Depending on the length of class, the inner and outer circles can also switch places halfway through class, or one group can discuss the first day, and the other group can discuss the next day.

Another option to allow this technique to work with smaller numbers, is to have an inner and outer circle in which movement into the middle is more voluntary. In this version, it is still the inner circle that discusses and the outer circle that observes. Students who start in the inner circle can be "tapped out" and then move to the outer circle. Students in the outer circle who have things to say can either do this tapping or the teacher can do it. I have found this system works best when the students in the class are more or less equal participants. Moving from one circle to the other also makes it more difficult to have members of the outer circle focus on specific dynamics in the inner circle; they might move into the inner circle’s conversation and out again several times during the course of it. Finally, because the participants vary, some of the observations of the outer circle can vary wildly, or they can be skewed, because the make up of the circle varies. Just as the inner circle works best when participants naturally balance their participation, in this version, the outer circle works best if its members can pay attention to the exchange of ideas.

When I taught in a school without defined skills and criteria for each area to be assessed, I used a rubric with three main categories--how students act, what they say, and how they say it (see Appendix B). This organization highlights the need for students to do work on their own, reading and understanding the book as well as bringing that understanding to the group to expand everyone’s degree of understanding.

Another way to organize a rubric assessing reading and listening is to organize the rubric around four demonstrated competencies: you are an active and involved participant in discussions; you demonstrate your knowledge of the text; you demonstrate your understanding of the text; you work with your classmates to reach a deeper understanding of the text (see Appendix C). The first focuses on a student’s conduct and listening; the second and third focus on the content of what the student says, the student’s ability to find and use evidence, and the reading skills involved in understanding plot and character; and the fourth focuses on conduct and listening, as well as critical thinking and the student’s ability to synthesize his or her own ideas with those raised in the discussion.

At Parker, assessment is shaped by the school’s Criteria for Excellence. Parker has specifically defined twelve skill areas in which we assess our students, and for each skill area the school has developed specific criteria for excellence. In Listening and Reading, the two areas on which the seminars focus, students must demonstrate skills in comprehension, interpretation, and process (see Appendices D and E). The school’s Criteria for Excellence impact the design of the rubric I use for assessment of seminar discussions at Parker; the rubric is organized around three skill areas: listening, reading, and critical thinking (see Appendix F).

The three rubrics, though different in organization, all address both the behavior of the student (sitting up, making eye contact, taking notes) and the content of the student’s contributions (using evidence from the text, developing interpretations, looking for themes and patterns). Students can demonstrate listening by how they conduct themselves during the seminar and by what they say as part of the conversation--specifically in their ability to address and question the points others raise. The evidence of reading comes through almost exclusively in the content of what students add to the discussion or in the written work they do after the discussion. I look for their knowledge of factual information from the text as well as an ability to find and use relevant quotes and other evidence from the text to support their interpretations.

All of these rubric place emphasis not just on what students think and how they explain their thinking; the rubrics also focus on how students discuss what they think with others.

The seminar discussion gets students talking to each other, managing their own discussions, and focusing on exchanging ideas rather than finding right answers. It encourages students to think critically, read closely, and use evidence. It helps students develop the skills of questioning, listening, and collaborating. I’ve examined the skills students use in seminars and the level at which they discuss the text, and have found that this practice connects with multiple standards in the Language, Reading and Literature, and Composition Strands of the Massachusetts English Language Arts Standards. Depending on the texts selected, the practice of using seminar discussions regularly also has the potential to address standards in the Media strand. But the practice does more than address multiple standards. I have learned, through practice, that seminars are an excellent way to challenge all of us, teachers and students, to push our thinking deeper.

Rebecca Wilusz is a teacher of Division 3, Arts and Humanities at the Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School. She received her B.A. in English and American Studies from Amherst College and her M.A.T. in Secondary English from Brown University.

Rebecca Wilusz
Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School
49 Antietam
Devens, MA 01432
978-772-3293

Text:

Date:

Question:

Key:

JB= Just Begins to meet standards

A= Approaches the standards

M= Meets the standards

E= Exceeds the standards

Comments:

Overall Assessment: JB-------A-------M-------E

Key:

JB= Just Begins to meet standards

A= Approaches the standards

M= Meets the standards

E= Exceeds the standards

Commendations:

Recommendations:

Overall Assessment: JB-------A-------M-------E

Appendix D

Parker Criteria for Excellence in Reading

Comprehension

• You identify the form and genre of a text.
• You use reading strategies that suit the material (highlighting, underlining, taking notes, reading aloud, visualizing).
• You recognize the organizational elements of a text (table of contents, index; acts, scenes, chapters; etc.).
• You understand the sequence of a text (beginning, middle, end; foreshadowing; flashbacks; etc.)
• You infer meanings of words from their context and look them up as needed.
• You can summarize or restate the main ideas or plot of a text.

• You generate questions about the text.
• You identify the author’s purpose and point of view.
• You distinguish fact from opinion.
• You analyze the positions taken in a text and the evidence offered in their support.
• You compare and contrast different texts.
• You make connections within and among texts.
• You make connections between the text and your own experience.
• You identify the historical and social context of a text.
• You evaluate writing strategies and elements of the author’s craft.
• You take a point of view about the text and support it with evidence.

Process

• You skim or scan a text to choose your reading strategies.
• You identify and seek help with problems you have in reading.
• You use a reading log or journal to explore ideas.
• You discuss what you read with other readers.

Appendix E

Parker Criteria for Excellence in Listening

Comprehension

• You identify the form of what you hear.
• You listen in a way that suits the material (taking notes, asking questions, engaging in dialogue).
• You recognize the organizational elements of what you hear.
• You infer meaning from context.
• You can summarize or restate the main ideas of what you hear.

Interpretation

• You generate questions about what you hear.
• You identify the speaker’s purpose and point of view.
• You distinguish fact from opinion.
• You analyze the positions taken in what you hear and the evidence offered in their support.
• You compare and contrast different things you hear.
• You make connections within and among things you hear.
• You make connections between what you hear and your own experience.
• You identify the historical and social context of what you hear.
• You evaluate the strategies and elements of the speaker’s craft.
• You take a point of view about what you hear and support it with evidence.

• You show attentiveness to the speaker through eye contact and body language.
• You listen without interrupting the speaker or talking to others.
• You identify and seek help with problems you have in listening.
• You discuss what you hear with other listeners.
• You take notes when appropriate.

Comments:

Listening: JB-------A-------M-------E

Reading: JB-------A-------M-------E

Critical Thinking: JB-------A-------M-------E

Bunte, Kelly. 1995. The Paideia Seminar in a High School Setting. Social Education (January): 9-10.

City, Liz and Mike Hale. 2001. Seminar Facilitation: Art, Science or Magic? Workshop presentation with video of Mortimer Adler. Coalition of Essential School’s Fall Forum, 10 November, Seattle, WA.

Evaluations of author’s Division 3 Arts and Humanities class, The American Dream. January 2002. Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School, Devens, MA.

Holden, James. 1995. Activating Student Voices: The Paideia Seminar in the Social Studies Classroom. Social Education (January): 8-9.

Klingenstein Summer Institute. 13-27 June 1999. Lawrenceville School, Lawrenceville, New Jersey.

Massachusetts Department of Education. June 2001. Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework. Retrieved 20 July 2002 from the Massachusetts Department of Education Web site: <http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/0601ela.pdf>

Metzger, Margaret. 1998. Teaching Reading: beyond the plot (improving student’s reading comprehension). Phi Delta Kappan (November): 240.

Philosophy and Methodology. Retrieved 20 July 2002 from the National Paideia Center Web site: http://www.paideia.org/html/philosophy3.html

Wiggins, Grant P. 1998. Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. Somerset, N.J.: Jossey-Bass.